sysknife_multipass_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description repeats 'read-only' twice and 'no params', all of which the annotations and schema already declare (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, zero properties). The only added context is that the listing includes VM state, which hints at return content but is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. It loses a point for restating read-only twice, which is redundant with the annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param, read-only listing with full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and knows it returns VM names and state. A brief note on return shape would make it complete, but little is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'no params' note is consistent with the schema even if redundant.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: list Multipass VMs and their state. The 'Multipass' resource is unique among siblings (distrobox_list, list_containers, snap_list), so an agent can distinguish it, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is a read-only listing for Multipass VMs. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over other list/state tools or any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.